Re: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements
Ok - I was confused. I was referring to 100 MHz DIMMs v. 133 MHz DIMMs. I take it Win2K works fine with 100 MHz DIMMs? Maris - Original Message - From: "Eli Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:16 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements | If you have a 700 MHz Pentium III then you have a 700 MHz CPU. Maybe | the 100 MHz refers to the bus speed. | I wouldn't bother with a dual-boot setup unless you really have to | do it to use hardware or software you cannot (or are not willing to) | upgrade. It's kind of a pain. | | | | -Original Message- | From: IronWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:52 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements | | | Thanks Eli. That was precisely my question. I have a 700MHz Pentium III | and 384 MB of DRAM but a 100 MHz CPU. I use Partition Magic and have been | considering a dual-boot setup for quite some time. | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: "Eli Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:37 PM | Subject: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements | | | | I would not run Win2K with a 100 MHz CPU if that is what Ironworks | | was asking. If it worked at all it would be horribly slow. Microsoft | | recommends a minimum of 133 MHz CPU. | | | | As for bus speed, I am not aware of any minimum, but if there is a | | minimum, I'm sure it is less than 133 MHz.
filmscanners: Vuescan
Hey Ed- I just got the Kodak RFS 3600, and was interested in giving Vuescan a try, but I went to the website and was hoping to see some screen shots or something... any chance you could add some? I'd just like to know what I can expect... Also, does anyone have any experience using this combination? Thanks in advance... Rick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Jim Snyder wrote: > > > But, a properly designed program usually uses speed keys for the buttons > anyway, and location is not a concern. I have yet to meet many users that > don't recohgnize the efficiencies picked up by shortcuts, aliases, and speed > keys. Even the function keys can be programmed to handle the tabs. You're suggesting to get rid of the menus and buttons inasmuch as their design doesn't matter and just have shortcuts, aliases, and speed keys? How about a CLI? Mike K. > > Jim Snyder, Software Engineer
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
>Most people are using 17" monitors these days, >which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now Not in my neck of the woods. Actually, at least where I live, 19" monitors are the current popular models and tend to be the sweet spot in terms of pricing. I would venture to say that this has been the case for the last year or more. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Austin Franklin wrote: > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at least 1280x1024 is > not untypical for most people who do image editing. In fact, I'd bet most > on this list have 1600 x 1200. > I'd bet you are wrong. Most people are using 17" monitors these days, which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now, and although people doing scanning "might" push that number a bit, I still would be surprised whether this list would skew results much from the norm. Further, there are many non-americans on this list and monitors are a heck of a lot more expensive outside of "consumerland". Lastly, even if my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. Art Art > You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am using now for > most of my image editing I paid $375 for...it's a Hitachi 802U > SuperScan...and is damn good). Video cards are around $100 that support > this kind of resolution... > > Unless you are using a notebook, which is a horrible image editing > environment anyway...you really might want to consider upgrading your > monitor/video card. > > This is like saying programmers should limit their program size so they can > fit on floppies...or something like that... Do you at least have a CD ROM > drive? >
Re: filmscanners: Kodak RFS 3600
Couldn't you just post to the list? I'd like to hear too... tv Rick Berk wrote: > > Would the person who e-mailed me for my opinion of the Kodak RFS 3600 please > e-mail me off list? I apologize- I had a system crash last week and lost > everything, including your message asking about it. Thanks. > Rick -- Thomas Van Veen Photography Washington D.C. http://bigdayphoto.com/ 301-758-3085
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Now I need a second monitor, preferably a 21" or 19" to go with the 21" > Trinitron that comes with the system. Any suggestions for around $600? > That's about my budget. Check out the 19" Cornerstone monitors on www.BigMonitors.com and run them at at least 1280X1024. Get the p1450 for $469 and run it at 1600x1200. Increase the side of your fonts and icons until you can read everything comfortably. You will be amazed at the improvement in legibility. If you can find a 21" monitor for $600 that would deliver an image anywhere close to what the p1450 can deliver, that would be big news to me. > BTW, I run my 21" monitor at 1152x864 (I think those are the numbers, I'm > not at home right now and can't check) That's what looks the best to my > eyes, without having to wear bifocals. Again, the solution to this isn't keeping the monitor at this low resolution. It is increasing the size of your fonts. When you do this, dialog boxes, everything, scales automatically. Everything will take on a sheen that you won't believe. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Funny that the user interface doesn't require the monitors run at the same resolution. I have a 450 and I just looked. Actually haven't tried it, tho. I had a 400 for about a year and replaced it with a 450 essentially so I could give my son a nice Christmas present (the 400). The 400 produced beautifully sharp images at 1856x1392, 32 bit color, and 75 Hz refresh rate on my Cornerstone p1700. Can't say I notice any improvement on my 450, but how can you improve on perfection? Funny how that "in depth" review never actually did say how it actually *looked*. Just a lot of technical analysis that doesn't amount to a hill of beans without actually checking it out. There was no indication in the review that they even tried it. Personally, I can vouch for it. The 450 AND the 400. For 2D stuff. Who cares about 3D? Not filmscanners qua filmscanners. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:36 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Unfortunately, the Matrox "dual-head" cards require that the two > monitors run at the same resolution, which can be a problem if > your monitors > are not the same size. > We had one in my workgroup (the 400, not the newer 450) and it got > passed around from person to person because no one liked it. > Exactly why, I > don't know, but no one seemed to be happy with it. > Here is a very in-depth analysis of the 450: > > http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315 >
filmscanners: Web Stats - OT
I've just accidently deleted the message I was going to reply to. Someone posted that the stats show the monitor resolution and that they design web sites for the largest viewing population. I'm not arguing,but here's my position. As we read our stats, most of our clients viewers are looking at the web sites during lunch hours on Tuesday and Wednesday. That would suggest smaller older monitors because they're browsing while at work. That would (and does) dictate using the lowest common denominator of screen resolution for web design. All our sites are designed to use either the center 600 pixels of the screen, or a percentage width resizable table to hold text. And for the most part, all our images are sized to 450 pixels. Now that I've said all that, it has nothing to do with scanning. Most of us can control what monitors we purchase and how they are set up, as compared to people using whatever is sitting on their desk that the company paid for three or so years ago. Larry <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
filmscanners: what is prescan [was Re: Need feedback on VueScan Idea]
- Original Message - From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 6:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > Jules writes ... > > > is the prescan in NikonScan just a scan? it's seems awful fast, > even faster > > than the fastest vuescan preview. > > The "prescan" in NS simply measures the proper exposure, altho it > also measures the exposure during the "preview" (one of the > preferences). With Vuescan, the exposure is measured according to > your preference as well, during the preview (default), or for > (presumably) batch scans, before the scan. well, NS has to scan the image, how else can it "simply measure the proper exposure"? there has to be image data. NS can also be configured to do auto exposure before the preview or the scan. there's a prescan mode in NS that seems to do an exposure reading and focusing perhaps? ~j
Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
Arthur Entlich wrote: > > IronWorks wrote: > > > Is a PC100 chip sufficient for Win2K? Microsoft's site recommends the PC133 > > minimum. > > > > Another possibility for some might be a dual boot system with 98SE and also > > 2K. > > > > Maris > > > > Does Win 2K require a 133mHz motherboard bus? Can WIN 2K run on a > Celeron system CPU which uses a 66mHz bus? > > Art No problem with my old machine with PC-100 memory. I don't believe it will have any problem with PC-66 systems. But honestly Pc-66 systems are very SLOW comparing to PC-133 systems. Quoton
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Austin Franklin wrote: > > Most scanners do hog the system quite a bit. The issue is both hardware and > software from what I can tell. The issue is the data is sent as it is > scanned, and as such, there is a real time requirement on the software to > take the data as it arrives. Polling is typically faster than interrupts in > this case, and as such, the system is bogged down in a loop checking for > data... > > A solution would be either a SCSI controller or scanner with some large > amount of memory, and you only transfer data when you have a lot to > transfer, and make it interrupt driven, instead of polled. You don't need > the entire image at once, but possibly two 4M buffers that get ping-pong'd > or something like that would certainly aid the situation. A caching > controller could be made to accommodate this, but I doubt they currently > will handle it the way one would want it to for a scanner. My old machine has dual processors. With Win98 only one processor gets used. When the scanner is scanning and if I try to open some image files by Photoshop at the same time the scanner's buzz slows down. So I tried Win2k so that the 2nd CPU gets used. It does. The scanner does not slow down any more. However, Photoshop (5.5) is noticeably slower on Win2k than Win98. My guess is that PS is a 16 bit program optimized under 16 bit OS such as Win98. But Win2k is a 32 bit OS. Quoton
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Most web hosting companies can get stats from users of their websites. You can find out what browsers are most popular, resolution settings, among other things. For me, as a web designer, such stats help me to create websites that are more accessible to everyone. If I see everyone is using 1024x768 or higher, I can design for that. If I see that 80% of my viewers are at 800x600, then I must design to that size. Nobody likes to scroll horizontally, and the resolution stat from my web host is a huge help in keeping my site looking good at all resolutions and on all platforms and in all browsers. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) Of course not. > My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal > to 1024x768. How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what their browser is set to? I don't know how you do what you claim, so I have no idea how you get that info. If my display information is being sent to someone, that would tick me off, because it's none of their business what my display settings are. What else gets sent?
Re: filmscanners: (no subject)
Don't buy the Kodak RFS 3600, Tony. The April 2001 issue of Shutterbug magazine has a review of it and the author states that he'd like to have one, "... just for the access to the excellent Kodak color negative interpretation capabilities. But the software precludes that possibility. This Kodak scanner has great promise, but its Achilles' heel is software that's not ready for prime time." For what it's worth Kodak packs 10 rolls of film with the scanner, so you'll get them no matter who you buy the scanner from. I can't recommend that you purchase the Polaroid SprintScan 4000 either, which is somewhat similar to the Kodak but just a little more costly. My experience has been that Polaroid doesn't have very good warranty repair service here in the U.S. (mine's been broke for 5 months and is back for repair for the third time). Maybe Polaroid's warranty repair service is better in your country, though. Also, Nikon has announced a couple of new scanners that should be available in April, but I haven't seen any test reports on them. Welcome to the group. I hope you aren't overwhelmed by the shear number of messages. I have to turn mine off tomorrow when I leave for a business trip or I'll fill up my mail box and I'll miss my 'important' e-mail. Take care. Roger Miller Seattle, Washington, USA
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Frank, What's a Luddite? : ) BK - Original Message - From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:57 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution There's no percentage in > being a Luddite these days when it comes to video technology. > > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> > The direction things are moving in is higher resolution, > > and you build your product for the future...not to live > > in the past. It's the same issue with memory, processor > > speed and storage capacity. > > You can do this if you're Microsoft, not if you're a shareware vendor. You follow the direction, not make the direction. The software runs on Windows...so the minimum requirement IS Windows. > This discussion is a little irrelevent anyway - Ed Hamrick is the author > of the software and it's his choice who he wants to support and how. Exactly. And I believe most anyone writing software will write it for the future, not for the past. Most companies that come out with new products don't support Windows 3.1...
filmscanners: A Digital Greenhorn's Malady! ;-)
As the above title hints at, I'm fairly new to the world of scanning. I just acquired a Umax Powerlook 3. I also purchased the MagicScan User's Guide with Grayscale Charts and detailed info on calibrating the flatbed. My problem is that I wish to scan 6x6 negs using the transparency adapter. The Guide says that for calibrating neg scanning, I need a negative transparent Grayscale chart which indicates the RGB value for each gray swatch. Does anyone know where I might obtain such an item? Thanks in advance! Joyfully, -david- <><
filmscanners: Kodak RFS 3600
Would the person who e-mailed me for my opinion of the Kodak RFS 3600 please e-mail me off list? I apologize- I had a system crash last week and lost everything, including your message asking about it. Thanks. Rick
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > Certainly, screen updates at 1600 x 1200 are going to be slower than > lower resolutions. With modern cards, there's no way the human eye could notice the difference. > It also means ridiculously small icons, > tools and cursors, unless you have a large screen size to begin with. As I mentioned previously, this is easily overcome. The point of large resolutions is smoother textures in images and more well-formed text. All this assumes you do have the bandwidth to handle the higher resolutions without sacrificing refresh rate, easily handled by current offerings, and you don't have to pay an arm and a leg anymore to get this performance. > Oh, did I mention your monitor will probably burn out sooner at that > screen mode? Why? Because it's running at a higher frequencies? That's like saying a 33 Mhz Pentium will last longer than a 900 MHz Pentium III. What I've found is that modern monitors running at much higher frequencies last a lot longer than monitors built five and ten years ago that run at much lower frequencies. They've figured this stuff out, Art. There's no percentage in being a Luddite these days when it comes to video technology. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote: > Collin Ong wrote: > > I believe that the main culprit is the totally nonsensical scan order, as > > you pointed out. The SDII scans frames from out to in, which maximizes > > the time the frames spend exposed to the environment. Combine that with > > the fact that the scan direction for each frame is in the *OPPOSITE* > > direction, which means that after scanning, the *slow* transport has to > > move back across the frame to get to the next one. I have no idea what > Could it be that they were thinking of people who want to scan just one > slide, and would otherwise have to wait until the whole carrier was > pulled in before scanning, and then having to wait for the whole carrier > to eject? Just a thought. That's a good thought, and it made me consider those people for a while, but I concluded: First off, why add the expense of a film transport for batch scanning, then make it unbearably painful to use it for batch scanning? Second, if somebody is scanning only one frame in a strip, then its equally likely that the frame will be closer to one end or the other. Either way, there will be some times when they'll have to wait for the transport, and it'll average out. But batch scanners suffer every time. -Collin
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Speaking of which, Dell shipped my new computer yesterday: 1.5 GHz, Win2K, 512 megs ram and a 60 gig 7200 RPM hard drive. Anyone want to buy a 32MB NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 4X AGPGraphics Card??? They wouldn't sell me the Matrox G450 unless I got a workstation so I ordered it direct from Matrox for $135. Great competitive price from the manufacturer. Now I need a second monitor, preferably a 21" or 19" to go with the 21" Trinitron that comes with the system. Any suggestions for around $600? That's about my budget. My other system has a Matrox G400 and a 21" and 13" Trinitron. I now want to go bigger on the second monitor. I find myself running a second program most of the time and am tired of looking at Word at 75%, or only seeing six thumbnails in ACDSee. BTW, I run my 21" monitor at 1152x864 (I think those are the numbers, I'm not at home right now and can't check) That's what looks the best to my eyes, without having to wear bifocals. Larry At 08:08 PM 3/7/01 -0800, Frank Paris wrote: >Try Matrox's latest, the 450, for $150. It has two video outputs build in. >One you can run one at 1600x1200, the other up to.. <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:>
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
All of that can be handled, since you can specify large icons, etc. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > Lastly, even if > my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be > unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, > cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. > > Art
Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
Art wrote: >Does Win 2K require a 133mHz motherboard bus? Can WIN 2K run on a >Celeron system CPU which uses a 66mHz bus? Win2K doesn't require any particular bus speed. It's just a Microsoft recommendation - making sure you buy upgrades from their friends at Intel and other chip manufacturers. ;) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Unfortunately, the Matrox "dual-head" cards require that the two monitors run at the same resolution, which can be a problem if your monitors are not the same size. We had one in my workgroup (the 400, not the newer 450) and it got passed around from person to person because no one liked it. Exactly why, I don't know, but no one seemed to be happy with it. Here is a very in-depth analysis of the 450: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315 -Original Message- From: Frank Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Try Matrox's latest, the 450, for $150. It has two video outputs build in. One you can run one at 1600x1200, the other up to 2048x1536. Takes only one slot. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:33 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > I use twin 21" monitors at work under Win2K. Once you have tried > twin monitors you will be spoiled forever. > It is not necessary to have two identical video cards, but some > cards are not compatible with others. Try before you buy, or get a return > guarantee. Matrox cards have had more than average compatibility > problems in > my experience.
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
- Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:18 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > You are making a number of assumptions which may not hold true for many > monitors and video cards. You are assuming that most monitors and cards > are sharper when placed in a higher pixel mode, and that more than > likely is actually not true. > No assumptions Arthur. Most monitors/video cards look better at higher resolutions. Only the best monitors/video cards look good at their highest resolutions. You may have to back off a step, but 640x480 or 800x600 is antique. I've been designing and specifying graphics display systems (both monitors and large screen) for about 15 years. I've followed the evolution of the PC and it's graphics modes starting with CGA. I'm familiar with all that you've mentioned and in some cases your concerns are true. All I'm saying is for those who haven't tried a higher resolution, give it a try. It may look better. But if you don't try it out, you'll never know. I never switched my monitor/video card into 1600x1200 until I started running Photoshop. On my particular equipment (not highend graphics equipment) it looked better. If it doesn't look better on yours don't use it. But if it does, you'll be happy you tried it. What do think Arthur. Can you agree with that? Bob Kehl
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Austin wrote: >Certainly there are people who use 640x480 to do image editing. Your claim was that most people on the list would use 1600x1200. I think there's been enough posts to the contrary to show that this is unlikely. Frank is the other only person I've seen mentioning that resolution or higher. In any case, the only way to be sure would be to take a survey and I don't think anyone has. I wonder if Tony has considered having a web survey on his site? > you, those tools are an exception to the rule. 640x480 *may* be the exception to the rule, but that depends on where you draw the boundaries of your sample set. Again, I don't think it's possible to say anything concrete without figures. In the general PC user population today I'd expect *most* people would use 800x600, but it may be that *most* scanner users have their computers set to higher resolutions. Number are needed in order to make definite statements. > The direction things are moving in is higher resolution, > and you build your product for the future...not to live > in the past. It's the same issue with memory, processor > speed and storage capacity. You can do this if you're Microsoft, not if you're a shareware vendor. Microsoft can afford to say "You have to have a PC133 Pentium III 800MHz CPU with 128MB of RAM and 2GB of hard drive space to run Win2K" but lesser mortals have to account for the lowest common denominator if they want to make money. > Buy used. I am sure you can buy Hitachi 802 monitors > used in AU. Video cards are cheap too. My video card can easily do 1600x1200. I doubt that there is a significant market for refurbished high resolution monitors capable of 1600x1200+ outside of Sydney or Melbourne, and I live a LONG way from either. Few companies that may be selling such would be on the internet. All that aside, I wouldn't buy a second hand monitor after the amount of trouble we've had with older monitors at work. Anything 3 years or older is likely to be suspect unless it has been properly refurbished and supplied with a warranty. I'm quite happy working in 1024x768 which is more the point for me personally. I'd love to have a 19" or 21" monitor but I simply can't justify the cost - new or 2nd hand. > Understood, but you can do well buying used, if > you know what you are looking for. Again, this assumes a lot. It's a big world, and the way it looks from where you're sitting isn't how it is for a lot of other people. This discussion is a little irrelevent anyway - Ed Hamrick is the author of the software and it's his choice who he wants to support and how. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Jules wrote: >is the prescan in NikonScan just a scan? it's seems awful fast, even faster >than the fastest vuescan preview. AFAIK it's a low resolution scan just like the Vuescan preview scan. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> > > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at least > 1280x1024 is > > not untypical for most people who do image editing. In fact, > I'd bet most > > on this list have 1600 x 1200. > > > I'd bet you are wrong. Most people are using 17" monitors these days, > which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now, and although > people doing scanning "might" push that number a bit, How much would you be willing to bet? "Most people" is distinctly different than "most people who have filmscanners", which is what this mailing list is about. How many people on this list do you think use PhotoShop? I believe PS has a higher user interface requirements than the scanner driver, which was the origin of this discussion (scanner driver screen space requirements).
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Ed: Taht works for me. i have not read the help file for some time and I am sure that insruction iis in there. All I have to do is remember to click it back on to get the output file. Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 3/7/2001 5:04:49 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > This all sound marvelousbut does this mean my Prescan Window suggestion > > didn't make the cut? Is there hope for this in the future? or is it just > > too much programming. > > Can you describe what you mean by a "Prescan" tab again? > Is it basically the same thing as the "Scan" tab, except without > any files being output? Can't this be accomplished by just > turning off outputting files in the Files tab and then pressing > the "Scan" button? > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements
If you have a 700 MHz Pentium III then you have a 700 MHz CPU. Maybe the 100 MHz refers to the bus speed. I wouldn't bother with a dual-boot setup unless you really have to do it to use hardware or software you cannot (or are not willing to) upgrade. It's kind of a pain. -Original Message- From: IronWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements Thanks Eli. That was precisely my question. I have a 700MHz Pentium III and 384 MB of DRAM but a 100 MHz CPU. I use Partition Magic and have been considering a dual-boot setup for quite some time. Maris - Original Message - From: "Eli Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:37 PM Subject: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements | I would not run Win2K with a 100 MHz CPU if that is what Ironworks | was asking. If it worked at all it would be horribly slow. Microsoft | recommends a minimum of 133 MHz CPU. | | As for bus speed, I am not aware of any minimum, but if there is a | minimum, I'm sure it is less than 133 MHz. | | This is all that is posted on the Win2K System Requirements page | (for the Professional version)( | http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/sysreq/default.asp | ): | | "133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU. | 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves | responsiveness. | 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space. | Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems." | | | If you want to know if a particular computer is Win2K compliant, you | can try this page: | http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/compat/search/computers.asp | | | Eli | | -Original Message- | From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:11 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like | W98SE? | | | | | IronWorks wrote: | | > Is a PC100 chip sufficient for Win2K? Microsoft's site recommends the | PC133 | > minimum. | > | > Another possibility for some might be a dual boot system with 98SE and | also | > 2K. | > | > Maris | > | | Does Win 2K require a 133mHz motherboard bus? Can WIN 2K run on a | Celeron system CPU which uses a 66mHz bus? | | Art
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Mark, I'm NOT intending to alienate anyone or imply that if your not operating a highend system your not up to speed. Photography and Image Editing is about artistic skills not technology. Technology is just a tool. I AM saying this. If you haven't so much as tried using a higher resolution for image editing and scanning, you may be pleasantly surprised to see that your existing hardware can offer a more pleasing image rendition than you thought possible. I switch back and forth on my Viewsonics (relatively cheepo) monitor. Images look better at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200, but when I'm working on email, spreadsheets or word processing 1024x768 looks better. When I'm surfing I sometimes switch to 800x600. Yes, there can be flicker problems due to slow refresh rates at higher resolutions, but high res, high refresh rate video cards aren't expensive anymore. They can be had for less than you might think. I am using an ATI Expert98 video card. It provides 85Hz refresh rate (flicker free) at 1600x1200. I bought mine for about US $125. Aberdeen now sells this video card for US $ 35.99. http://www.aberdeeninc.com/ My Viewsonic 17" monitor is not high-end at all (anymore), but it does 1600x1200 at 76Hz and looks pretty good. I paid a lot of money for it some years ago, but now Aberdeen sells it for less than US $400. I'll be selling this monitor and video card some day soon on e-bay and be lucky to get US $200 for the lot. I'll bet there's lots more out there (but maybe not in Australia - sorry, Rob). Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Mark T. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:34 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) > > My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal > to 1024x768. This is for a photography site, even if it is by no means > aimed at the high end of town. Plus: > > 1. Monitor flicker can be a major problem with high-resolutions > 2. Many older cards/monitors simply don't support true or even high color > at high resolutions > 3. Some monitor/card combinations just don't work well at some resolutions > 4. We are not all made of money, and some of us do this as a hobby. (Try > even 1024x768 on a 14"!!) > > Yes, all of these issues are able to be solved with money, but it all adds > up. If I'm alone here as an amateur/hobbyist, just say so, and I'll shut > up! But I thought the list was just about film-scanners, and that having a > professional or even semi-professional setup was not a pre-requisite.. > > > I mean, just take a look at Tony's home page - looks like his monitor isn't > even color! ;-) > > MT > > > > == > Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Try Matrox's latest, the 450, for $150. It has two video outputs build in. One you can run one at 1600x1200, the other up to 2048x1536. Takes only one slot. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:33 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > I use twin 21" monitors at work under Win2K. Once you have tried > twin monitors you will be spoiled forever. > It is not necessary to have two identical video cards, but some > cards are not compatible with others. Try before you buy, or get a return > guarantee. Matrox cards have had more than average compatibility > problems in > my experience.
Re: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements
Thanks Eli. That was precisely my question. I have a 700MHz Pentium III and 384 MB of DRAM but a 100 MHz CPU. I use Partition Magic and have been considering a dual-boot setup for quite some time. Maris - Original Message - From: "Eli Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:37 PM Subject: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements | I would not run Win2K with a 100 MHz CPU if that is what Ironworks | was asking. If it worked at all it would be horribly slow. Microsoft | recommends a minimum of 133 MHz CPU. | | As for bus speed, I am not aware of any minimum, but if there is a | minimum, I'm sure it is less than 133 MHz. | | This is all that is posted on the Win2K System Requirements page | (for the Professional version)( | http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/sysreq/default.asp | ): | | "133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU. | 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves | responsiveness. | 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space. | Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems." | | | If you want to know if a particular computer is Win2K compliant, you | can try this page: | http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/compat/search/computers.asp | | | Eli | | -Original Message- | From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:11 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like | W98SE? | | | | | IronWorks wrote: | | > Is a PC100 chip sufficient for Win2K? Microsoft's site recommends the | PC133 | > minimum. | > | > Another possibility for some might be a dual boot system with 98SE and | also | > 2K. | > | > Maris | > | | Does Win 2K require a 133mHz motherboard bus? Can WIN 2K run on a | Celeron system CPU which uses a 66mHz bus? | | Art
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Robert Kehl wrote: > Well if you think you're puzzled, I'm really puzzled. Why would anyone use > anything but the highest resolution available for scanning and viewing > images created with high resolution devices such as filmscanners. > > Unless your scanning at 72 dpi from a flatbed for use on the web, you really > ought to try a higher resolution, as high as your video card/monitor > combination will let you go. Sure, sure the fonts are hard to read. So go > into control panel and select "large fonts". But look at your images in the > highest resolution you can. > > I use 1024x768 for word-processing and e-mail on my 17" monitor, but for > images I always use 1600x1200 whether on my 17" or 19" monitor. Once you > try it it will be hard to go back. > > Bob Kehl > You are making a number of assumptions which may not hold true for many monitors and video cards. You are assuming that most monitors and cards are sharper when placed in a higher pixel mode, and that more than likely is actually not true. Further still, since you likely still cannot see a high res film scan at a one to one ratio at 1600 x 1200 pixels, the graphics card is still having to downsample the result by some factor to see the full image, and you again assume the downsampling is done more accurately at that resolution than another, which again may not ne true. Certainly, screen updates at 1600 x 1200 are going to be slower than lower resolutions. In fact, the only advantage I can see by using the resolution you suggest is that more of the image will be visible when zooming 1:1. When I work on an image in photoshop, and I need that kind of accuracy, I just zoom in to get a 1:1 ration or beyond. In general, running your monitor at a higher frequency, necessary for the 1200 x 1600, means unless it is a very good monitor and video card, more smearing, a lower refresh rate, that some find annoying, possible a lower bit depth screen image (depending upon the video card memory) and more RF and electro-magnetic splatter. It also means ridiculously small icons, tools and cursors, unless you have a large screen size to begin with. Oh, did I mention your monitor will probably burn out sooner at that screen mode? Art
Re: filmscanners: restorating color
Hi John, I read the same article, and no, it doesn't require an IR channel. Both ROC and GEM can be added to any scanner via software, but it does require, as I understand it, that it is customized to the scanner. The results shown in the article samples were nothing short of miraculous, or at least "science fiction". Pretty amazing stuff! Art John Matturri wrote: > Read an interesting article about Applied Science Fiction's ROC > technology of restoring color of old pictures, indicating that it makes > its restoration on the basis of distinct patterns of grain-change for > different film stocks. I assume that this doesn't use the IR channel; is > > this right? The example shown in the creativepro article > (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11973.html) was pretty > impressive. How does the ROC method relate to the method used in Vuescan > > (which I haven't experimented with but am interested in)? I'll be very > interested in seeing reports about this as the new Nikons become > available. > > John M.
Re: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
Collin Ong wrote: > I believe that the main culprit is the totally nonsensical scan order, as > you pointed out. The SDII scans frames from out to in, which maximizes > the time the frames spend exposed to the environment. Combine that with > the fact that the scan direction for each frame is in the *OPPOSITE* > direction, which means that after scanning, the *slow* transport has to > move back across the frame to get to the next one. I have no idea what > Minolta was thinking when they designed this scanner (if indeed they did > the design themselves). > > Ed Hamrick: is there any way you can reverse the order the frames are > scanned in? This would greatly improve the usability of this scanner. > Could it be that they were thinking of people who want to scan just one slide, and would otherwise have to wait until the whole carrier was pulled in before scanning, and then having to wait for the whole carrier to eject? Just a thought. Art
Re: filmscanners: restorating color
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 3/7/2001 5:50:02 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> Read an interesting article about Applied Science Fiction's ROC >> technology of restoring color of old pictures, indicating that it makes >> its restoration on the basis of distinct patterns of grain-change for >> different film stocks. I assume that this doesn't use the IR channel; is >> this right? > > > That's correct. Neither ROC nor VueScans "Restore colors" options > need the infrared channel. > > >> The example shown in the creativepro article >> (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11973.html) was pretty >> impressive. How does the ROC method relate to the method used in Vuescan > > > VueScan also analyzes the grain patterns to find the grain > colors, but also does some clever processing to handle > different gammas in each dye color (each dye fades > differently when exposed to heat, light and humidity). > The article referred to at Creativepro states that ROC also compensates for these factors. In fact, the article implied the grain pattern is recognized by the program in terms of which film type it is, and then adjusts to the fading characteristics of that film type. It should be mentioned that the author is a reviewer who visited A.S.F., not a spokesperson for that company. Art > Regards, > Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Austin Franklin wrote: > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at least 1280x1024 is > not untypical for most people who do image editing. In fact, I'd bet most > on this list have 1600 x 1200. > I'd bet you are wrong. Most people are using 17" monitors these days, which is the sweet spot in the pricing structure right now, and although people doing scanning "might" push that number a bit, I still would be surprised whether this list would skew results much from the norm. Further, there are many non-americans on this list and monitors are a heck of a lot more expensive outside of "consumerland". Lastly, even if my video card and monitor can produce 1600 x 1200 pixel screen, I'd be unlikely to use it that way, due to the way it would shrink icons, cursor and tool sizes on a 17" screen. Art Art > You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am using now for > most of my image editing I paid $375 for...it's a Hitachi 802U > SuperScan...and is damn good). Video cards are around $100 that support > this kind of resolution... > > Unless you are using a notebook, which is a horrible image editing > environment anyway...you really might want to consider upgrading your > monitor/video card. > > This is like saying programmers should limit their program size so they can > fit on floppies...or something like that... Do you at least have a CD ROM > drive? >
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 5:27 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > Can you describe what you mean by a "Prescan" tab again? > Is it basically the same thing as the "Scan" tab, except without > any files being output? Can't this be accomplished by just > turning off outputting files in the Files tab and then pressing > the "Scan" button? > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick The Prescan Tab would display a Prescan Window. The Prescan Window would display low resolution thumbnail prescans of whatever film was placed in the scanner, up to 40 frames. These thumbnails would be selectable via the mouse using standard Windows selection techniques. (left click, control-left click, shift-left click). The selection would show up in the Frame Number settings. While your at it, a histogram with mouse selectable white and black points would be way cool. Add a little Unsharp Mask and most images could be scanned and be ready to go straight out of Vuescan. Photoshop would only be needed for image manipulation or darkroom type finessing, not for scanning images. And the value of Vuescan will have grown exponentially (IMO). Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: restorating color
At 05:12 PM 7/03/01 -0500, John wrote: >Read an interesting article about Applied Science Fiction's ROC >technology of restoring color of old pictures, indicating that it makes >its restoration on the basis of distinct patterns of grain-change for >different film stocks. I assume that this doesn't use the IR channel; is >this right? The example shown in the creativepro article >(http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11973.html) was pretty >impressive. How does the ROC method relate to the method used in Vuescan >(which I haven't experimented with but am interested in)? I'll be very >interested in seeing reports about this as the new Nikons become >available. Now *they* have a dust problem! The lower examples left me VERY puzzled - what on earth happened to the color of the grass?? Looking closely at the original there doesn't seem to be any reason for that dramatic gradation. MT
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) Of course not. > My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal > to 1024x768. How do you know that is their display resolution, and not what their browser is set to? I don't know how you do what you claim, so I have no idea how you get that info. If my display information is being sent to someone, that would tick me off, because it's none of their business what my display settings are. What else gets sent?
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I use twin 21" monitors at work under Win2K. Once you have tried twin monitors you will be spoiled forever. It is not necessary to have two identical video cards, but some cards are not compatible with others. Try before you buy, or get a return guarantee. Matrox cards have had more than average compatibility problems in my experience. One way to do the twin monitor setup that need not be horribly expensive is to get one good quality 17" monitor and a video card that will allow you to go up to your desired resolution (I think 1280x1024 is about the max you would want to run on most 17" monitors) and color depth (usually 24 bit) at a refresh rate above 60Hz (in my experience, any refresh rate higher than 75Hz is just overkill and gives no additional image quality -- usually the opposite). Then get any old cheapo video card and monitor for the second screen. You can run this one at a much lower color depth (16 bit, 8 bit or even 4 bit), so it doesn't need as much video card power. Be sure you can get the refresh rate over 60 Hz, or it will be hard to look at for long, due to the flicker. You can put your image on the good monitor and put all the other stuff (taskbar, toolboxes, desktop icons, etc) on the cheapo screen. This gives you a nice large image and plenty of extra real estate for everything outside the image area. -Original Message- From: Edwin Eleazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 6:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Heck, some of us are still using a 15" LCD display at 1024X768 32 bit, but saving for a 21" trinitron and another video card. The dual display is really the way to go, after trying it on a friends system. The LCD on a moveable arm, and the desk real estate occupied by the 21" is a very usable setup, great for photo editing. Does anyone use this type of setup, and what type of video cards? I have seen where the same make of card was a good idea, and my friends setup uses a NVIDIA Twinview card feeding both monitors. Edwin
Re: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Do you guys want to alienate all amateurs on this list? ;) My visitor stats say that 80% of my visitors are using less than or equal to 1024x768. This is for a photography site, even if it is by no means aimed at the high end of town. Plus: 1. Monitor flicker can be a major problem with high-resolutions 2. Many older cards/monitors simply don't support true or even high color at high resolutions 3. Some monitor/card combinations just don't work well at some resolutions 4. We are not all made of money, and some of us do this as a hobby. (Try even 1024x768 on a 14"!!) Yes, all of these issues are able to be solved with money, but it all adds up. If I'm alone here as an amateur/hobbyist, just say so, and I'll shut up! But I thought the list was just about film-scanners, and that having a professional or even semi-professional setup was not a pre-requisite.. I mean, just take a look at Tony's home page - looks like his monitor isn't even color! ;-) MT == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
> Austin wrote: > > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at > > least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do > > image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have > > 1600 x 1200. > > Geeze, Austin. Several people have already responded saying > they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've > yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let > alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people > regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. Certainly there are people who use 640x480 to do image editing. If that is the tool set you have, then that is what you use. But, I will guarantee you, those tools are an exception to the rule. The direction things are moving in is higher resolution, and you build your product for the future...not to live in the past. It's the same issue with memory, processor speed and storage capacity. > > You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am > > using now for most of my image editing I paid $375 for. > > In the USA maybe. Buy used. I am sure you can buy Hitachi 802 monitors used in AU. Video cards are cheap too. > Please don't force out those of us who don't do image editing > for a living, or don't have the money to spend on high end > hardware. There's a lot of folks with film scanners who > aren't professional photographers or graphic artists. Understood, but you can do well buying used, if you know what you are looking for.
RE: filmscanners: RE: Win2k and application RAM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (shAf) wrote: > > Mike writes ... > > > I don't think this is right. There is a total 4GB adressable space, > > including virtual memory. Some of this is probably reserved for the > > operating system, probably reducing the maximum for the > > application to 2GB, > > > I just checked, you are correct ... not 4Gb ... each > app is allocated 2Gb (a MIPS throwback). VAX/VMS got there first! The origins of the NT kernel as written by Dave Cutler and team of RSX11 and VMS fame mean that NT has quite a few VMS-alike features under the skin. The division of the 4G address space between system and process is the same principle as VMS. My goodness though, call me an old'n but I never really thought we would be pushing the 4G limits in the same way as once upon a time there was a 640K and even earlier 64K limit :-) (... reference > Minasi's "Mastering Windows 2000 Professional" ...) > > shAf :o) > > > > PAUL GRAHAM writes ... > > > > > I'm planning to get one of the new 4000 dpi medium format > > > scanners for my 6x7 negs, ... > > > ... > > > Got a bit freaked out when I saw that a scan of this size > > > in 16 bit is 624 Mb. (8 bit: 312 Mb) > > > ... > > > > > > Mac OS only allows a max of 1Gb Ram to any one program > > > (eg Photoshop), does Windows 2000 have similar > > > ... > > > > The memory allocated by Win2k for each program is 4Gb, > > which, I believe, includes virtual memory. > > > > shAf :o) > > > > > >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I set my monitor to 1856x1392 and adjust the font size to the point where I can read them comfortably. My video card/monitor combination is capable of 2048x1536 but when I go that high I am pushing the bandwidth of the system and things start fuzzing up. I'd use 5000x3000 if I could get away with it, and then set my font size to 400% (or whatever it would work out to be). I haven't been as "low" as 1600x1200 on my 21" monitors for two years. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > Austin wrote: > > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at > > least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do > > image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have > > 1600 x 1200. > > Geeze, Austin. Several people have already responded saying > they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've > yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let > alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people > regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. >
Re: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
I do have a dust problem. A piece of plastic wrap loosely placed over the front and back cover of my ss4000 helps a good deal, protecting the slides/negs on the holder and also blocking dust from getting in the mechanism. John M. > What about putting a "dust guard" over the > entrance area made out of cardboard or whatever, to protect the film > carrier from dust, which mainly falls from above? > > Art >
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
You can set your refresh rate also in the Control Panel Display icon. It should be at least 75. Sometimes at high resolutions and greater than 75, you are pushing the bandwidth of your video card/monitor and things will start to fuzz up. So you have to be aware of the tradeoffs between high refresh rate and the capabilities of your hardware. The advertised maximums invariably push the system into less than optimal sharpness. Remember, screen resolution and sharpness are not at all the same thing, even though literally speaking, the word resolution seems to imply that they are. This is what I think Austin Franklin's beef is in using the word resolution to name the pixel dimensions of the display. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution > > > > Robert writes ... > > > ... Why would anyone use > > anything but the highest resolution available for scanning > > and viewing images created with high resolution > > devices such as filmscanners. > > > > ... > > > > I use 1024x768 for word-processing and e-mail on my 17" > > monitor, but for images I always use 1600x1200 whether > > on my 17" or 19" monitor. > > The higher resolutions are generally refreshed at slower rates, and > sometimes the "flicker" is uncomfortable ... not always true, but > depends on the display card. Monitor manufacturers usually list > suggested resolutions as well, and it doesn't make much sense to go > beyond the dot pitch. > > shAf :o) >
re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
>Lyn A wrote: >>Alan W wrote: > >>On slides it's mostly a moot point unless they are underexposed. >>Also Kodachrome is a denser slide generally, which can drop shadows too low >for many scanners to distinguish properly. > >I've found that my Scanwit 2720S does a really good job on well-exposed >slides and negs, and is almost flawless with landscapes. But the biggest >problem area in *both* media is where the dynamic range is wide >and produces serious "noise" with slides and negs alike. Hi, Lyn. I'm a bit surprised that you have this problem with the Scanwit. Mine displays a distinct lack of noise in deep shadows, even in the old K25 and 64. Pete's Photoscientia site also refers to this - I wonder if there is much variation from scanner to scanner? The only time I begin to see noise in a slide is if I try to recover an absolute disaster (like 3+ stops underexposed) when the Acer puts its exposure up to very high levels. Then I can see some slight streaking in the lower third of the slide (interestingly my Acer sits on top of my PC - see below*). Even less of a problem with negs - I *do* get grain-aliasing which seems much worse on under-exed negs, but that is a little easier to deal with, or you can always claim it is a deliberate effect! :-( As a test, I dug up a badly underexposed K25 (the old type) slide that I had a photo lab make a print from about 5 years ago. The print wasn't *too* bad.. When I had a go, the Scanwit drew more shadow detail out, and I got a better print with no 'noise' detectable. Looking closely at the scan, it does show an effect that looks a bit like grain-aliasing in the darkest shadows, but the effect is very even, and not 'noise-like'. I guess it can't be g-a (I hope this thread doesn't start again!), because I can't see how 2720 dpi would come anywhere near resolving grain effects from K25..(?) * Is it possible that the noise is coming from elsewhere, eg a device or transformer near the Acer or it's cable? I encountered this problem with my old Olympus scanner.. I would be interested to see the sort of noise you are getting, perhaps you could even send a small crop to me off-list, or perhaps post it on a web-site? (On-list attachments are a bit annoying for digest users.) Regards, MT. == Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.adelaide.net.au/~markthom
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Rob Geraghty wrote: > they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've > yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let > alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people > regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. I'm not in favor of exclusion, but I do use 1600x1200 on a 21" monitor and am not am imaging professional. When on a 15" monitor, I used 1024x768. -Collin
filmscanners: Win2K system requirements
I would not run Win2K with a 100 MHz CPU if that is what Ironworks was asking. If it worked at all it would be horribly slow. Microsoft recommends a minimum of 133 MHz CPU. As for bus speed, I am not aware of any minimum, but if there is a minimum, I'm sure it is less than 133 MHz. This is all that is posted on the Win2K System Requirements page (for the Professional version)( http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/sysreq/default.asp ): "133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU. 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves responsiveness. 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space. Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems." If you want to know if a particular computer is Win2K compliant, you can try this page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/compat/search/computers.asp Eli -Original Message- From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE? IronWorks wrote: > Is a PC100 chip sufficient for Win2K? Microsoft's site recommends the PC133 > minimum. > > Another possibility for some might be a dual boot system with 98SE and also > 2K. > > Maris > Does Win 2K require a 133mHz motherboard bus? Can WIN 2K run on a Celeron system CPU which uses a 66mHz bus? Art
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Jules writes ... > is the prescan in NikonScan just a scan? it's seems awful fast, even faster > than the fastest vuescan preview. The "prescan" in NS simply measures the proper exposure, altho it also measures the exposure during the "preview" (one of the preferences). With Vuescan, the exposure is measured according to your preference as well, during the preview (default), or for (presumably) batch scans, before the scan. HTH ... shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Then it's a good thing that no one, including myself, is proposing an interface that would require anything higher than 640X480. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of IronWorks > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:10 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > > > *We* may be but there are others out in this big wide world - many new to > scanning, to graphics. I'm sure there are those of us even besides Alan > Tyson who do. I'm also sure that Ed wants to sell to these people as well > as to those of us with higher-end equipment. After all, we > already have the > program and are no longer potential customers. > > Maris > > - Original Message - > From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:33 AM > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > > > | I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough > | real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow. (They don't > overflow now, do > | they? And they will take up less real estate by having them in one > control.) > | There are also two choices the programmer has as to the behavior of tab > | overflow. One puts out multiple rows and the other puts an arrow at the > | right that lets you scroll through the tabs. Both options are > obnoxious in > a > | most people's opinions. Interfaces should be designed so that > tab overflow > | doesn't happen. One solution when there are a lot of properties > is to have > | nested tab controls, but this is a very thorny problem for programmers, > not > | easily kicked out in a weekend. The Microsoft SDK doesn't support it > | directly, and I've seldom seen it implemented (I've done it, > and know how > | difficult it is). > | > | Frank Paris > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > | > | > -Original Message- > | > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Tyson > | > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:27 PM > | > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > | > > | > > | > I should be happy to have a single group of tabs, provided > | > that you don't use the dreadful standard MS tab system, > | > where the tabs rotate apparently at random, so that I can't > | > remember which ones I've just looked at. > | > > | > PS: I still remember & love 'Vuescan Classic' where all > | > settings were visible on one screen at the same time. This > | > meant driving the scanner and twiddling its output was > | > analogous to a simplified NASA control centre with knobs & > | > dials, rather than a TV remote control. > | > > | > Regards, > | > > | > Alan T > | > > | > - Original Message - > | > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:08 PM > | > Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > | > > | > > | > > I'm curious what people think of the idea of having > | > > VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having > | > > one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan > | > > visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all > | > > the tabs). > | > > | > > | > | >
RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2k? Does is manage color like W98SE?
That was just a figure of speech. Obviously there are many things about the two systems that are absolutely identical. In areas of performance in large hardware configurations and in reliability, aspects of particular interest to filmscanners, 2000 has it all over 98. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:40 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2k? Does is manage color like > W98SE? > > > Frank writes ... > > > Windows 2000 is in every way superior. > > > > But it handles color management the same as Win98se ... > > shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Nope. I was dead serious, and obviously totally deluded. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shough, Dean > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:12 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > > > > >I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough > > >real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow. > > > > When I read this, I thought it must be tongue in cheek.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:27 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > In a message dated 3/7/2001 5:04:49 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > This all sound marvelousbut does this mean my Prescan Window suggestion > > didn't make the cut? Is there hope for this in the future? or is it just > > too much programming. > > Can you describe what you mean by a "Prescan" tab again? > Is it basically the same thing as the "Scan" tab, except without > any files being output? Can't this be accomplished by just > turning off outputting files in the Files tab and then pressing > the "Scan" button? is the prescan in NikonScan just a scan? it's seems awful fast, even faster than the fastest vuescan preview. ~j
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Lynn wrote: > It would help everybody's, I'm sure. The solution is > co-processors, which is a hardware fix and not in > Vuescan's purview. Amiga type coprocessing is no different from hardware acceleration on any number of peripherals like graphic accelerator cards, DMA capable drives, etc. Those issues aren't really important in interface design - the hardware is largely transparent to the software as far as the Windows display is concerned. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Austin wrote: > The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at > least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do > image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have > 1600 x 1200. Geeze, Austin. Several people have already responded saying they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher. > You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am > using now for most of my image editing I paid $375 for. In the USA maybe. Remember also that a lot of the people on this list are not in the USA and don't have access to the cheap prices you do. I live in Australia and I'm reasonably certain that I couldn't buy a monitor that would workably do 1600x1200 or even 1280x1024 for everyday editing at a price of AUD$800. My existing 17" monitor and video card can do 1280x1024x24bit, but the interface would be unreadable, or at least cause me far too much eyestrain. Please don't force out those of us who don't do image editing for a living, or don't have the money to spend on high end hardware. There's a lot of folks with film scanners who aren't professional photographers or graphic artists. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
Collin Ong wrote: > > > But, now dust will settle on the exposed flat surface of the other frames > on the strip! This is such a problem with the Minolta Scan Dual II that I > turned that scanner sideways to avoid dust problems! > > Collin You've got some dust problem there! How does the unit operate in that plane? Any problems yet? What about putting a "dust guard" over the entrance area made out of cardboard or whatever, to protect the film carrier from dust, which mainly falls from above? Art
Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
IronWorks wrote: > Is a PC100 chip sufficient for Win2K? Microsoft's site recommends the PC133 > minimum. > > Another possibility for some might be a dual boot system with 98SE and also > 2K. > > Maris > Does Win 2K require a 133mHz motherboard bus? Can WIN 2K run on a Celeron system CPU which uses a 66mHz bus? Art
RE: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Tim Victor wrote: > On Wednesday, March 07, Collin Ong wrote: > > But, now dust will settle on the exposed flat surface of the other frames > > on the strip! This is such a problem with the Minolta Scan Dual II that I > > turned that scanner sideways to avoid dust problems! > > Interesting that you'd mention that, Collin. I always set up some kind > of a dust shield on top of my Scan Dual II--a notebook or clipboard or > something--to try to keep junk from settling on the unscanned frames. I did both. I turned the scanner on its side, then cut up a cardboard box that enclosed the entire scanner and the protruding film holder. I still got dust on the strip between the time that I air-blew it clean and the time that frame reached the scanner. > Incidently, I did have the bright idea of scanning the frames in reverse > direction, from 6 down to 1, so that each frame would remain inside > the scanner while it was waiting to be scanned. But VueScan refuses > to do this. If I enter "6-1" in the Frames box, it only scans frame 6. If > I enter "6,5,4,3,2,1" it sorts the list and scans in ascending order to > spite me! I believe that the main culprit is the totally nonsensical scan order, as you pointed out. The SDII scans frames from out to in, which maximizes the time the frames spend exposed to the environment. Combine that with the fact that the scan direction for each frame is in the *OPPOSITE* direction, which means that after scanning, the *slow* transport has to move back across the frame to get to the next one. I have no idea what Minolta was thinking when they designed this scanner (if indeed they did the design themselves). Ed Hamrick: is there any way you can reverse the order the frames are scanned in? This would greatly improve the usability of this scanner. Thanks, Collin
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Robert writes ... > ... Why would anyone use > anything but the highest resolution available for scanning > and viewing images created with high resolution > devices such as filmscanners. > > ... > > I use 1024x768 for word-processing and e-mail on my 17" > monitor, but for images I always use 1600x1200 whether > on my 17" or 19" monitor. The higher resolutions are generally refreshed at slower rates, and sometimes the "flicker" is uncomfortable ... not always true, but depends on the display card. Monitor manufacturers usually list suggested resolutions as well, and it doesn't make much sense to go beyond the dot pitch. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Colin wrote: >Rob Geraghty wrote: >>anyone using vuescan would surely be using Photoshop or PSP, both of >>which are unworkable in 640x480. > Unworkable? I'm using PS at 640 x 480 (and using Vuescan) and > both work fine. Sorry, I didn't mean to say they *wouldn't* work. I was just saying that at least in my opinion, 640x480 leaves too little desktop space to accomodate all the tools, buttons etc and still have enough of the image actually visible unless the image is small. When designing interfaces, I find 800x600 is a minimum to be able to space things out and have a "nice" display. Trying to squeeze everything into a smaller desktop takes a lot more work. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
"Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Subject: RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? > Does is manage color like W98SE? Just in case it hasn't been stated clearly, Win98SE, WinME and Win2K all use the same colour management system. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
In a message dated 3/7/2001 5:04:49 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > This all sound marvelousbut does this mean my Prescan Window suggestion > didn't make the cut? Is there hope for this in the future? or is it just > too much programming. Can you describe what you mean by a "Prescan" tab again? Is it basically the same thing as the "Scan" tab, except without any files being output? Can't this be accomplished by just turning off outputting files in the Files tab and then pressing the "Scan" button? Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: restorating color
In a message dated 3/7/2001 5:50:02 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Read an interesting article about Applied Science Fiction's ROC > technology of restoring color of old pictures, indicating that it makes > its restoration on the basis of distinct patterns of grain-change for > different film stocks. I assume that this doesn't use the IR channel; is > this right? That's correct. Neither ROC nor VueScans "Restore colors" options need the infrared channel. > The example shown in the creativepro article > (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11973.html) was pretty > impressive. How does the ROC method relate to the method used in Vuescan VueScan also analyzes the grain patterns to find the grain colors, but also does some clever processing to handle different gammas in each dye color (each dye fades differently when exposed to heat, light and humidity). Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have 1600 x 1200. You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am using now for most of my image editing I paid $375 for...it's a Hitachi 802U SuperScan...and is damn good). Video cards are around $100 that support this kind of resolution... Unless you are using a notebook, which is a horrible image editing environment anyway...you really might want to consider upgrading your monitor/video card. This is like saying programmers should limit their program size so they can fit on floppies...or something like that... Do you at least have a CD ROM drive? > Well if you think you're puzzled, I'm really puzzled. Why would > anyone use > anything but the highest resolution available for scanning and viewing > images created with high resolution devices such as filmscanners. > > >I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough > > >real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow. > > > > I use 1024x768. > > > > This is the second message I have read in 3 minutes where the > author, who > > has probably never met any of the other Vuescan users, has made a > definitive > > statement about how those people use Vuescan and how they have their > > computer set-up. I guess if these two messages had of been > correct then I > > would have been impressed by the omniscience of the authors but > since they > > were both wrong then I am just puzzled.
RE: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
The Canon doesn't have an automatic frame advance, so I have to physically remove the holder and adjust a slider for the next frame. I ALWAYS attempt to remove the dust from the frame to be scanned. To me, it's not that big a deal. Bob Reilly -Original Message- From: Collin Ong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback ) On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Reilly, Bob wrote: > I've found that with my Canon FS2710 that the negative holder "tilts" > noticeably when a frame at either end is scanned. This is not too ... > horizontal -- forget about the stick bending for this test). To solve this > "problem" I simply turned the scanner on its side so that the negative > holder is now horizontal. Voila, with careful insertion, no more tilting! But, now dust will settle on the exposed flat surface of the other frames on the strip! This is such a problem with the Minolta Scan Dual II that I turned that scanner sideways to avoid dust problems! Collin
Re: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
Turn it on end perhaps? Maris - Original Message - From: "Collin Ong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 2:12 PM Subject: RE: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback ) | | On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Reilly, Bob wrote: | | > I've found that with my Canon FS2710 that the negative holder "tilts" | > noticeably when a frame at either end is scanned. This is not too | ... | > horizontal -- forget about the stick bending for this test). To solve this | > "problem" I simply turned the scanner on its side so that the negative | > holder is now horizontal. Voila, with careful insertion, no more tilting! | | But, now dust will settle on the exposed flat surface of the other frames | on the strip! This is such a problem with the Minolta Scan Dual II that I | turned that scanner sideways to avoid dust problems! | | Collin | |
RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
I have had W2K run on a Pentium 90, you have to be patient, but it works. Be warned, you must have enough Ram, I would suggest 128Mb or more, especially in this case. Rorik J. Melberg mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sequencia.com ProcessPoint: http://www.processPoint.com -Original Message- From: IronWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE? Is a PC100 chip sufficient for Win2K? Microsoft's site recommends the PC133 minimum. Another possibility for some might be a dual boot system with 98SE and also 2K. Maris - Original Message - From: "Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:11 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE? | > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of ALLM Rose | > | > I am considering whether to reload Win98SE, WinMe or Win2000 Professional on | > my Athlon 700 (256MB SDRAM) system. I am currently using Win98SE, Adobe | > Photoshop 6.0, printing with an Epson 870 through WiziWYG color profiles, | > and scanning images through my Nikon LS-30 with Vuescan. | > | > Does anyone see any potential conflict that would make Win2000 a bad choice? | | Win2K is faster and much more reliable than Win9x. No contest at all. I use Win2K with a | Polaroid SS35+ scanner, Epson 3000 printer, DV capture board, Wacom Intuos tablet, | Vuescan, AdobePS 6, etc. Everything works smoothly. But before making a decision it's a | good idea to check hardware and system compatibility: | http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/ | | Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia | http://www.enochsvision.com; http://www.bahaivision.com -- "Behind all these | manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art | is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell |
filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Well if you think you're puzzled, I'm really puzzled. Why would anyone use anything but the highest resolution available for scanning and viewing images created with high resolution devices such as filmscanners. Unless your scanning at 72 dpi from a flatbed for use on the web, you really ought to try a higher resolution, as high as your video card/monitor combination will let you go. Sure, sure the fonts are hard to read. So go into control panel and select "large fonts". But look at your images in the highest resolution you can. I use 1024x768 for word-processing and e-mail on my 17" monitor, but for images I always use 1600x1200 whether on my 17" or 19" monitor. Once you try it it will be hard to go back. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Henry Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:17 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > >From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough > >real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow. > > I use 1024x768. > > This is the second message I have read in 3 minutes where the author, who > has probably never met any of the other Vuescan users, has made a definitive > statement about how those people use Vuescan and how they have their > computer set-up. I guess if these two messages had of been correct then I > would have been impressed by the omniscience of the authors but since they > were both wrong then I am just puzzled. > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com >
filmscanners: restorating color
Read an interesting article about Applied Science Fiction's ROC technology of restoring color of old pictures, indicating that it makes its restoration on the basis of distinct patterns of grain-change for different film stocks. I assume that this doesn't use the IR channel; is this right? The example shown in the creativepro article (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11973.html) was pretty impressive. How does the ROC method relate to the method used in Vuescan (which I haven't experimented with but am interested in)? I'll be very interested in seeing reports about this as the new Nikons become available. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
>But the biggest > problem area in *both* media is where the dynamic range is >wide, e.g. in > But seriously, how are other users handling this problem?- Not very well, in general, myself. I frequently resort to burning in highlights and/or dodging shadows using PaintShopPro's 'smart edge selection tool', with judicious tweaking of the histograms for the selected bits of image. Any helpful suggestions for better methods (other than 'buy a more expensive scanner') would be very welcome here as well. Regards, Alan T Original Message - From: Lynn Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 3:34 PM Subject: re: filmscanners: Kodak Color Input Targets
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Ed, This all sound marvelousbut does this mean my Prescan Window suggestion didn't make the cut? Is there hope for this in the future? or is it just too much programming. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:55 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > > I've organized the tabs from left to right in the order that > they'll typically be used: Device, Crop, Process, Files, > Prefs, Preview (for image), Scan (for image). I'm going > to try to order the options within each tab in a way that's > somewhat related to frequency of use. > > I've also removed those things from the menus that can be > done with a button to simplify things a bit. > > I quite like this new arrangement, and I'm going to release > it as the first 7.0 beta in a day or two. I'd be happy to tweak > it some more at that time. > > To top it off, the LS-40 is working as close to perfectly as > I can tell. It was amazing how few the required changes > were. > > Regards, > Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
I mean Vuescan v5.9t53 (Feb2000) and earlier. It didn't have a preview, and Ed's made many algorithmic strides since then, so it was primitive by current standards. However, all settings were visible on a single screen. Alan T - Original Message - From: IronWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 5:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea > Unfortunately I've never seen that one. > > Maris > > - Original Message - > From: "Alan Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:27 PM > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea >. > I still remember & love 'Vuescan Classic' .
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
> I did some Amiga programming back in the day and they > did have some nice ideas. But with the accelerated graphics controllers > I/O subsystems on current PC's, I think the Intel world has just about > caught up by now. :-) The Amiga was basically a grown up Atari. The first "graphics accelerator" for consumer use was in the Atari 400/800 as far as I know. There were other graphics processors before Atari, namely those used by Computervision and Aplicon. I do not believe the Apple II had a graphics accelerator at that time...it was purely memory mapped display memory...
RE: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
On Wednesday, March 07, Collin Ong wrote: > But, now dust will settle on the exposed flat surface of the other frames > on the strip! This is such a problem with the Minolta Scan Dual II that I > turned that scanner sideways to avoid dust problems! Interesting that you'd mention that, Collin. I always set up some kind of a dust shield on top of my Scan Dual II--a notebook or clipboard or something--to try to keep junk from settling on the unscanned frames. I hadn't thought of turning the scanner on its side but I might have to try that. Incidently, I did have the bright idea of scanning the frames in reverse direction, from 6 down to 1, so that each frame would remain inside the scanner while it was waiting to be scanned. But VueScan refuses to do this. If I enter "6-1" in the Frames box, it only scans frame 6. If I enter "6,5,4,3,2,1" it sorts the list and scans in ascending order to spite me! Best wishes, Tim Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
On Wednesday, March 07, Henry Richardson wrote: >>From: Tim Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>But the more typical case is working through a batch of a couple >>of dozen pictures using the same settings. > > And how do you know that is the more typical case? I don't really, Henry. It seemed reasonable to me. Sometimes I'm scanning a frame from here and two from there, but the cases where I'm really worried about throughput and work flow are the ones where I have several full rolls of film to get through. Maybe I'm the weird one though... > Maybe Ed has a > pretty good feel for the typical use of Vuescan and will come up with > something that will be fine. I'm just concerned that a few people making > very definitive statements with no evidence to back them up will influence > Ed to make changes that may in fact *not* be best for the most people. Yes, it's Ed's program and ultimately Ed's call. All we can do is provide him with as much feedback as possible based on our own experience, and then count on Ed's judgement to make the right calls. Best wishes, Tim Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Wednesday, March 07, Collin Ong wrote: > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Lynn Allen wrote: >> Tim wrote: >> >>>It would help my workflow considerably if I could answer email or write >>> invoices or whatever, rather than having to babysit the scanner for each >>> frame. >> >> It would help everybody's, I'm sure. The solution is co-processors, which is > > Actually the solution is not co-processors. The reason you can't do this > is because VS doesn't currently provide a way to prescan multiple frames, > select crop and image processing settings for each, then batch scan > and process them all. Yes, Collin, that's what I was thinking of. I wasn't so much concerned with being able to using the scanning PC while it was scanning. I can move to my laptop to work on something else, or go get a snack or make a phone call. As you say, I'd just like to be able to batch scan a strip of frames with pre-entered manual settings for cropping and image processing. VueScan's batch scanning is very nice if you're using the automatic options for those features, but I prefer to set them myself. Consequently I'm tied to the computer for a couple of hours when I could be doing something else. Best wishes, Tim Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
On Wednesday, March 07, Lynn Allen wrote: > Tim wrote: >>It would help my workflow considerably if I could answer email or write >> invoices or whatever, rather than having to babysit the scanner for each >> frame. > > It would help everybody's, I'm sure. The solution is co-processors, which is > a hardware fix and not in Vuescan's purview. Amiga still has the patents on > that, I think (and please forgive me for constantly and good-naturedly > bugging you long-time Mac & PC people on that point, and my I-told-you-so > rants :-)). No problem. I did some Amiga programming back in the day and they did have some nice ideas. But with the accelerated graphics controllers I/O subsystems on current PC's, I think the Intel world has just about caught up by now. :-) As I said in another message, I don't mind leaving my main PC alone to get the batch scanning done as quickly as possible. I'll work on my laptop or read a magazine or something in the meantime. What I meant to suggest was simply the ability to preview a whole batch scan, manually set the crop, rotation, image processing, etc., for each frame (and yes, interactive preview of color correction settings, as others have suggested, would be lovely!) and then scan the batch unattended. Best wishes, Tim Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
On Wednesday, March 07, Henry Richardson wrote: >>From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough >>real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow. > > I use 1024x768. As do I. I don't have the desk space for a larger monitor. Tim Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
Is a PC100 chip sufficient for Win2K? Microsoft's site recommends the PC133 minimum. Another possibility for some might be a dual boot system with 98SE and also 2K. Maris - Original Message - From: "Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:11 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE? | > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of ALLM Rose | > | > I am considering whether to reload Win98SE, WinMe or Win2000 Professional on | > my Athlon 700 (256MB SDRAM) system. I am currently using Win98SE, Adobe | > Photoshop 6.0, printing with an Epson 870 through WiziWYG color profiles, | > and scanning images through my Nikon LS-30 with Vuescan. | > | > Does anyone see any potential conflict that would make Win2000 a bad choice? | | Win2K is faster and much more reliable than Win9x. No contest at all. I use Win2K with a | Polaroid SS35+ scanner, Epson 3000 printer, DV capture board, Wacom Intuos tablet, | Vuescan, AdobePS 6, etc. Everything works smoothly. But before making a decision it's a | good idea to check hardware and system compatibility: | http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/ | | Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia | http://www.enochsvision.com; http://www.bahaivision.com -- "Behind all these | manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art | is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell |
RE: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Reilly, Bob wrote: > I've found that with my Canon FS2710 that the negative holder "tilts" > noticeably when a frame at either end is scanned. This is not too ... > horizontal -- forget about the stick bending for this test). To solve this > "problem" I simply turned the scanner on its side so that the negative > holder is now horizontal. Voila, with careful insertion, no more tilting! But, now dust will settle on the exposed flat surface of the other frames on the strip! This is such a problem with the Minolta Scan Dual II that I turned that scanner sideways to avoid dust problems! Collin
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
In a message dated 3/7/2001 12:05:50 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Main reason for it is the same reason that many "toolbars" in programs are
> at the top just below the menus. The reason is mouse movement. If one
> exclusively uses one set or the other as alternatives, then it doesn't
> matter -- but if one goes from one to the other during use, then mouse
> movement is minimized ("ease of use") by having them next to another.
I just did a version to put the buttons at the top (it's 4 lines
of code difference). It looks a lot better with the buttons
at the bottom. It looks really cluttered with the buttons at
the top, since there are then three rows of things at the top:
the menu bar, the buttons and then the tabs.
I've organized the tabs from left to right in the order that
they'll typically be used: Device, Crop, Process, Files,
Prefs, Preview (for image), Scan (for image). I'm going
to try to order the options within each tab in a way that's
somewhat related to frequency of use.
I've also removed those things from the menus that can be
done with a button to simplify things a bit.
The typical mouse movement will be to select a tab (at
the top), change an option (on average in the middle
left of the window) and then press a button (at the
bottom of the window). This left to right, top to bottom
mouse movement seems natural.
Also, when a button is pressed, the status will be updated
at the bottom, which is near where the eye will leave off
after clicking a button.
I quite like this new arrangement, and I'm going to release
it as the first 7.0 beta in a day or two. I'd be happy to tweak
it some more at that time.
To top it off, the LS-40 is working as close to perfectly as
I can tell. It was amazing how few the required changes
were.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Rob Geraghty wrote: >anyone using vuescan would surely be using Photoshop or PSP, both of >which are unworkable in 640x480. Unworkable? I'm using PS at 640 x 480 (and using Vuescan) and both work fine. Colin Maddock
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
>From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I happen to believe VS's "raw scan" versus "subsequent crop" >philosophy is its greatest strength and what sets it apart form other >softwares. I believe you ought to emphasize this, and make it >conceptually easy to use, by keeping what addresses the raw scan in >one tab, separated from what addresses subsequent cropping. Yes, I agree with this. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
> > >It would help my workflow considerably if I could answer email or write > > invoices or whatever, rather than having to babysit the scanner for each > > frame. > > > > It would help everybody's, I'm sure. The solution is > co-processors, which is > > Actually the solution is not co-processors. Most scanners do hog the system quite a bit. The issue is both hardware and software from what I can tell. The issue is the data is sent as it is scanned, and as such, there is a real time requirement on the software to take the data as it arrives. Polling is typically faster than interrupts in this case, and as such, the system is bogged down in a loop checking for data... A solution would be either a SCSI controller or scanner with some large amount of memory, and you only transfer data when you have a lot to transfer, and make it interrupt driven, instead of polled. You don't need the entire image at once, but possibly two 4M buffers that get ping-pong'd or something like that would certainly aid the situation. A caching controller could be made to accommodate this, but I doubt they currently will handle it the way one would want it to for a scanner.
RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of ALLM Rose > > I am considering whether to reload Win98SE, WinMe or Win2000 Professional on > my Athlon 700 (256MB SDRAM) system. I am currently using Win98SE, Adobe > Photoshop 6.0, printing with an Epson 870 through WiziWYG color profiles, > and scanning images through my Nikon LS-30 with Vuescan. > > Does anyone see any potential conflict that would make Win2000 a bad choice? Win2K is faster and much more reliable than Win9x. No contest at all. I use Win2K with a Polaroid SS35+ scanner, Epson 3000 printer, DV capture board, Wacom Intuos tablet, Vuescan, AdobePS 6, etc. Everything works smoothly. But before making a decision it's a good idea to check hardware and system compatibility: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/ Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com; http://www.bahaivision.com -- "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
RE: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )
I've found that with my Canon FS2710 that the negative holder "tilts" noticeably when a frame at either end is scanned. This is not too surprising since the holder is 6 frames long plus another 2 frames worth of holder on the "right-hand" end and the internal bracket is only 1 frame wide. (Try holding the end of a long stick and keeping it perfectly horizontal -- forget about the stick bending for this test). To solve this "problem" I simply turned the scanner on its side so that the negative holder is now horizontal. Voila, with careful insertion, no more tilting! Bob Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 2:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback In a message dated 3/6/2001 7:56:25 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > What about subtle rotation of the crop box in the scan window? If VueScan > currently does this, then I don't know how to use it. I have had a few > instance of the slide being a little "off", where I think "off" is on the > order of + or - 5 degrees. Rotations that aren't an even multiple of 90 degrees are quite CPU intensive and are fairly complex to implement. For now, I'll leave these small rotations to other programs like Photoshop. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: Filmscanner linearity
I must assume that film scanners do not respond to RGB input in equal measure across the separations tonescale. Does anyone on here know what the score is on the above and how do the manufacturers balance the response of the CCD device across the separation range from HL to Shadow. Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Mike Kersenbrock wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Also, I was asked by one person to put the buttons at the top, above
> > the tabs. This ends up looking quite cluttered, and it's easy to press
> > a tab instead of a button, and vice versa. Putting the buttons at
> > the bottom and having the menus and tabs at the top seems to be
> > quite natural. Unless someone can come up with a convincing
> > argument for putting the buttons at the top, I'm planning on leaving
> > them at the bottom.
>
> Main reason for it is the same reason that many "toolbars" in programs are
> at the top just below the menus. The reason is mouse movement. If one
> exclusively uses one set or the other as alternatives, then it doesn't
> matter -- but if one goes from one to the other during use, then mouse
> movement is minimized ("ease of use") by having them next to another.
>
But, a properly designed program usually uses speed keys for the buttons
anyway, and location is not a concern. I have yet to meet many users that
don't recohgnize the efficiencies picked up by shortcuts, aliases, and speed
keys. Even the function keys can be programmed to handle the tabs.
Jim Snyder, Software Engineer
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Lynn Allen wrote: > Tim wrote: > > >It would help my workflow considerably if I could answer email or write > invoices or whatever, rather than having to babysit the scanner for each > frame. > > It would help everybody's, I'm sure. The solution is co-processors, which is Actually the solution is not co-processors. The reason you can't do this is because VS doesn't currently provide a way to prescan multiple frames, select crop and image processing settings for each, then batch scan and process them all. > a hardware fix and not in Vuescan's purview. Amiga still has the patents on > that, I think (and please forgive me for constantly and good-naturedly I'm not sure what patents Amiga has on this, but both Macs and PC's both offer multiprocessor systems, which have been available for a few years now. -Collin
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
shAf wrote: > > Ed writes ... > > > What do people think of my putting options that affect the raw scan > > in the Device tab, and other options in other tabs? > > I happen to believe VS's "raw scan" versus "subsequent crop" > philosophy is its greatest strength and what sets it apart form other > softwares. I believe you ought to emphasize this, and make it > conceptually easy to use, by keeping what addresses the raw scan in > one tab, separated from what addresses subsequent cropping. > Yes! --Alan
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
I like this idea very much - I can conceive of ignoring all the other settings and just setting the Device/Raw Scan Setting tab and checking the preview before continuing with the others (not in all cases but some). I agree with your logic that the settings should be logically arranged - thus easier to remember where they are for all - rather than guessing what might be the most or more 'common' way of using them. Maris - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 5:22 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea | In a message dated 3/7/2001 3:16:03 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | > One of the keys to effective software design is to make the common | > cases easy and the uncommon cases possible. | | I completely agree with this. However, one person's logical grouping | of controls isn't logical to another person. | | What do people think of my putting options that affect the raw scan | in the Device tab, and other options in other tabs? I've been asked | several times in the past few days which options affect the raw scan, | and this seems like a logical way to organize things. | | However, I could also imagine wanting to put the most common options | in one tab, and less common options in another, but this would be | subject to endless debate about what a "common" option is. Doing | it functionally would at least end the debate . | | It's only a single-click to pull up another tab, so I think it makes | sense to organize the tabs functionally. | | Regards, | Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: (no subject)
I can't help you on the Kodak, but archives are at http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ Maris - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:27 AM Subject: filmscanners: (no subject) | Hi there | | | I've just signed up to this list. I'm looking for info on the new Kodak | RFS3600. Can anyone point me in a good direction other than the kodak | website? Does anyone know the release date or has it already been released in | the UK? | | Just one more thing, is it possible to search archives of past months on this | list? | | Cheers | | Tony |
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
I disagree - sometimes I adjust "film type" - maybe the film is old, maybe it's off, whatever. Also, all sessions are not necessarily devoted to one film type - I may want 2-3 frames from one film, and one from another, etc. for a specific project. I prefer all of these controls where they are now, with the exception of Ed's suggestion to combine the tabs/panels and move some options around but tabs still accessible. Maris - Original Message - From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:52 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea | I just had another idea for un-cluttering a tab window, possibly | removing entire tab. Since any session, is entirely dedicated to a | particular roll of film, why not move all concerns for film type to a | menu item?? There may be many "preferences, we'd need less immediate | access to, ... preferred color space & whether or not to embed the | color space, ... the default application after the scan ... auto scan | & auto eject ... watermark ... release memory ... JPEG quality ... all | options for the index file ... font size ... beep ... blink ... anyway | you get the idea. Can't these be moved to menu items and preference | dialogs?? | | another US$0.02 ... shaf :o) |
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
*We* may be but there are others out in this big wide world - many new to scanning, to graphics. I'm sure there are those of us even besides Alan Tyson who do. I'm also sure that Ed wants to sell to these people as well as to those of us with higher-end equipment. After all, we already have the program and are no longer potential customers. Maris - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:33 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea | I'm sure we're all using at least 1280X1024 and so there is enough | real-estate so that the tabs won't overflow. (They don't overflow now, do | they? And they will take up less real estate by having them in one control.) | There are also two choices the programmer has as to the behavior of tab | overflow. One puts out multiple rows and the other puts an arrow at the | right that lets you scroll through the tabs. Both options are obnoxious in a | most people's opinions. Interfaces should be designed so that tab overflow | doesn't happen. One solution when there are a lot of properties is to have | nested tab controls, but this is a very thorny problem for programmers, not | easily kicked out in a weekend. The Microsoft SDK doesn't support it | directly, and I've seldom seen it implemented (I've done it, and know how | difficult it is). | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 | | > -Original Message- | > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Tyson | > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:27 PM | > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea | > | > | > I should be happy to have a single group of tabs, provided | > that you don't use the dreadful standard MS tab system, | > where the tabs rotate apparently at random, so that I can't | > remember which ones I've just looked at. | > | > PS: I still remember & love 'Vuescan Classic' where all | > settings were visible on one screen at the same time. This | > meant driving the scanner and twiddling its output was | > analogous to a simplified NASA control centre with knobs & | > dials, rather than a TV remote control. | > | > Regards, | > | > Alan T | > | > - Original Message - | > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:08 PM | > Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea | > | > | > > I'm curious what people think of the idea of having | > > VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having | > > one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan | > > visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all | > > the tabs). | > | > | |
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Unfortunately I've never seen that one. Maris - Original Message - From: "Alan Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:27 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea | I should be happy to have a single group of tabs, provided | that you don't use the dreadful standard MS tab system, | where the tabs rotate apparently at random, so that I can't | remember which ones I've just looked at. | | PS: I still remember & love 'Vuescan Classic' where all | settings were visible on one screen at the same time. This | meant driving the scanner and twiddling its output was | analogous to a simplified NASA control centre with knobs & | dials, rather than a TV remote control. | | Regards, | | Alan T | | - Original Message - | From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:08 PM | Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea | | | > I'm curious what people think of the idea of having | > VueScan with one tab visible at a time (i.e. not having | > one group of tabs on the right and the preview/scan | > visible on the left, but instead one grouping of all | > the tabs). | |
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Ed wrote:
>What do people think of my putting options that affect the raw scan in the
Device tab, and other options in other tabs? I've been asked several times
in the past few days which options affect the raw scan, and this seems like
a logical way to organize things.
Seems to me that that would follow only if people thought of the Raw Scan as
"Device Oriented," whereas I would not ("Device" having a HW connotation).
The Color tab would be more logical, but not semantically correct. I would
personally look for "Raw Scan/File" under an "Output" tab, which doesn't
currently exist. Possibly it should, but that wouldn't necessarily be
downwardly compatible with previous versions.
It's a dilema. I'm *so* glad that you're a much better developer than I am!
Best regards--LRA
---
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Also, I was asked by one person to put the buttons at the top, above
> the tabs. This ends up looking quite cluttered, and it's easy to press
> a tab instead of a button, and vice versa. Putting the buttons at
> the bottom and having the menus and tabs at the top seems to be
> quite natural. Unless someone can come up with a convincing
> argument for putting the buttons at the top, I'm planning on leaving
> them at the bottom.
Main reason for it is the same reason that many "toolbars" in programs are
at the top just below the menus. The reason is mouse movement. If one
exclusively uses one set or the other as alternatives, then it doesn't
matter -- but if one goes from one to the other during use, then mouse
movement is minimized ("ease of use") by having them next to another.
Mike K.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Tim wrote: >One of the keys to effective software design is to make the common cases easy and the uncommon cases possible. That's well put, Tim, and it's beginning to happen, even. >In the rare case where someone gets stuck with a mixed batch of slides to scan, they'd have waste an extra mouse action per slide. That's a case where they'd quickly learn what the hotkey was for the Preferences...dialog. Rare? I don't think so. Larry B and I are from different disciplines, yet we *both* had similar comments on our experiences. The Real World Fact is that there *is* no "typical case" in prosumer computer graphics. All of us have different applications and goals, and we're "doin' our thing" as best we can for the best results we can get, without having to upgrade to a very-expensive Sun Workstation and custom software--which I would probably give my left arm to have, but for the fact that I need it "on rare occasion!" :-) What makes Vuescan so great is that it does so many things on so many levels, and does them well. Change that, and you change its scope and value for us schlubs who have a job to do and find VS is a good tool and a good buy at a good price. No offense to anyone (please), but I LIKE Vuescan, and I don't want it to become another Photoshop or whatever. Its many features have pulled my butt out of the fire on many occasions, and I can't really say that about very many other program I've ever used in 20-years of computer graphics. :-) Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
